This is surely the documentary I have been waiting to see for years.

I = P x A x T
(Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology)

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, December 13th, 2009 8:12am PST - promote requested by fissionchips.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by ant.

Wooohoo! Eastern european here! More air for me!

Exactly what needs to be said. That is all.

Why do people always argue when you start talking about over-population? I always hear these arguments that food production is getting better and better and people are learning better and more efficient ways to exist. But I can't help but thinking that scientific and social advancements are great and all but why not just start promoting the idea that people need to have less babies? And why are we giving money to people here in America to just keep having more and more?

It seems like a pretty simple equation to me but I always get vitriol when I mention it.

I don't mind population growth, so long as we have an eye toward spreading humanity beyond this one measly planet.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
But I can't help but thinking that scientific and social advancements are great and all but why not just start promoting the idea that people need to have less babies?

I think you missed the point in the documentary where they mention that it doesn't work well to try to limit peoples population growth by promoting less babies. People get less babies when their countries develop and they have good access to contraception. Many developed countries are already experiencing near zero or even negative growth.

I think with improved technology the Earth can easily support many more billions. The UN predicts that the population will level out around 9 billion in the medium scenario.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not
vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050 (figure 6). In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected
to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 per cent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly
to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by
2300.

However the people could be richer and the planet in better state if the population growth doesn't continue too much. So the best way to accomplish that is to help developing countries develop as quickly as possible and give free access to contraception if people can't afford it.

Well, by 2050 we'll have 9 billion people, but by that time all our fish stocks worldwide will have collapsed completely from overfishing. We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it. We're still getting better and better at fishing, using sonar, bigger nets, better ships, but just as the technology makes it easier to find fish, it is getting harder and harder to find them, fishermen are having to travel further and further to get their catches, ultimately this cycle is destined to total failure. So that's one source of food production that we will ultimately have to do without. Unless something changes...

Just keep it in your pants, people!

If only sex wasn't so awesome and condoms didn't suck so much!

I see Houston, TX at 2:48. I know where that is.

Hmmm always wondered about this.

I know this isn't a single solution but I can't help but be astounded by the "global hectare" number given to the USA, I mean I knew there would be massive waste consumption there but to be 2x the next country? It seems absurd to think about it how much waste that really is.

Anyway, the overall feeling as shown by that town in India, education + freedom + contraception = stabalising populations. Chuck on a bit more thought in to individual waste consumption (which will reduce industrial waste to bring you all that crap you don't need) and presto, the world is happy again.

I wish it was as easy as typing it

9 billion. Beyond that, we're gonna need some MAJOR technological progress to last much longer without a major die-out.

You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5883
"Nearly half of the seafood we eat today is farmed"

>> ^ryanbennitt:
Well, by 2050 we'll have 9 billion people, but by that time all our fish stocks worldwide will have collapsed completely from overfishing. We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it.

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. However, I think it would be very effective if the Catholics in Africa (for example) had started promoting contraception years and years ago. Just think of the millions of lives that would have been saved with that one simple idea.

Of course, not as many people would've been born so it really wouldn't be millions I guess...

Just a FEW million.

And as far as fish farming, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

Why would you want to work harder for something that naturally occurs? Instead of focusing your energy on something more productive than just trying to keep up with what you already had? It doesn't really make sense to me.

>> ^cybrbeast:
You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.

Tell that to the massive fishing fleets driving species to extinction...

>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^cybrbeast:
You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.
Tell that to the massive fishing fleets driving species to extinction...


Regardless, that does not make your statement "We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it." any more true.
I speculate that before we drive the fish to extinction the massive fishing fleets will become uneconomical due to lack of fish. They will stop and species hopefully recover. This could be expedited by strict resolutions

Vertical farming is the answer. Skyscrapers filled with hydroponics, using all kinds of light and surface area tricks (stuff growing on every surface, four seasons in every building). Requires far less energy and water than conventional soil based agriculture.

And as for fresh water, you can kill two birds and get "free" energy plus fresh water through the use of hybrid solar steam engine\distiller fields. The dominant vertical farming concept will probably incorporate these two functions as well, meaning they will generate their own power and gather\convert their own fresh water.

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^cybrbeast:
You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.
Tell that to the massive fishing fleets driving species to extinction...

Regardless, that does not make your statement "We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it." any more true.
I speculate that before we drive the fish to extinction the massive fishing fleets will become uneconomical due to lack of fish. They will stop and species hopefully recover. This could be expedited by strict resolutions


A species could easily become extinct just by bringing the numbers down to a certain point. And other species could still become extinct in the process causing chain reactions. It seems like a pretty dangerous speculation.

If you're really interested in the subject. I'd suggest reading: "Cod, a Biography of the Fish That Changed the World" by Mark Kurlansky. It's a fascinating book in it's own right and definitely covers the dangers involved with this subject.

A global population of about 1 billion sounds pretty good to me...then again, I'm a misanthrope

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by radx.

Sagemind has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because Sagemind's points are already fully charged.

*deadead, blocked worldwide

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chingalera.